JUDGMENT : AJIT SINGH, J. 1. This appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been preferred by the wife, challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 27/1/2015, passed by the District Judge, Jorhat in Marriage Title Suit No. 3/2011. By the impugned judgment and order, the title suit for divorce filed by the husband/respondent was allowed and the marriage between the parties has been dissolved. 2. The brief facts are these. The appellant married the respondent on 8/10/2009 and both of them started living as husband and wife. But after a few days of their marriage, the appellant started behaving inappropriately and also quarrelled with the respondent and his family members on flimsy grounds. The appellant complained of low income of the respondent and expressed her unwillingness to lead a happy married life with him. On 23/5/2010, the appellant also removed her vermillion from her forehead for which the family members of the respondent as well as the appellant had to approach their spiritual Guru, too. On 12/8/2010 appellant gave birth to a child and she went to her parental house for a few days. But she refused to come back to her matrimonial home in spite of repeated requests by the respondent and also threatened to commit suicide if she is not divorced by the respondent. Being afraid of any eventuality, the respondent lodged a first information report, which was registered as G.D.Entry No. 236 in the Pulibor Police Station on 09/12/2010.The respondent then filed a suit for divorce on 5.1.2011. 3. The appellant contested the case by filing written statement denying the allegations of mental cruelty meted out to the respondent and contended that the respondent used to demand dowry from her. She also stated that after birth of the newborn, when she went to her matrimonial home on 14/1/2011, she was not allowed to enter the house by the respondent. She also averred that the respondent is a contractor having sufficient means and as such, in the event of granting a decree of divorce, permanent alimony of Rs. 15 lakhs may be awarded besides granting maintenance pendent-lite of Rs.5,000/- per month. 4. The respondent adduced his evidence as PW1 and also adduced the evidence of one Smti Nima Bordoloi as PW 2. 15 lakhs may be awarded besides granting maintenance pendent-lite of Rs.5,000/- per month. 4. The respondent adduced his evidence as PW1 and also adduced the evidence of one Smti Nima Bordoloi as PW 2. Both these witnesses were cross-examined on behalf of the appellant and ultimately the District Judge passed the impugned judgment and order, as aforesaid. Hence this appeal. 5. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant before the Court of District Judge did not properly present the case of appellant and also did not cross examine the witnesses effectively for which she cannot be allowed to suffer. It has also been submitted that the appellant had already lodged a complaint before the Bar Council regarding the misconduct of the learned Counsel appearing on her behalf and as such the matter may be remanded to the trial Court enabling the appellant to present her case properly. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, we find that the appeal has no merit. It appears from the records that the appellant was given adequate opportunity to cross examine both the witnesses and the witnesses were thoroughly examined. Thereafter, the case was fixed for evidence of the appellant on 3(three) occasions, i.e. 12/8/2014, 22/9/2014 and 14/11/2014. Ultimately, the case was fixed for hearing on 07/01/2015. It is evident from the records that appellant did not appear before the Court on last three (3) occasions and only appeared on the date of passing the judgment. As such, it cannot be said that the appellant was not provided with adequate opportunity to present her case. The witnesses were extensively cross-examined on behalf of the appellant and as such the matter cannot be remanded for further cross-examination to fill up the lacuna, if any. The duty of the appellant was to monitor her case with reasonable caution and diligence. Merely engaging the counsel to defend her case would not make her free from all her responsibilities. Therefore, accusing the learned Counsel for not appearing before the learned trial Court or failing to cross-examine the witnesses more effectively, would no way rescue the appellant. The duty of the appellant was to monitor her case with reasonable caution and diligence. Merely engaging the counsel to defend her case would not make her free from all her responsibilities. Therefore, accusing the learned Counsel for not appearing before the learned trial Court or failing to cross-examine the witnesses more effectively, would no way rescue the appellant. Although, it is no more res Integra that the parties cannot suffer for the fault of the lawyers, at the same time the said principle does not have a blanket application in all cases and it does not absolve the parties from taking steps adequately to safeguard their own interest. For the reasons aforesaid, we disagree with the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment and order does not bear any illegality or infirmity calling for interference. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.